1. If they did the right thing earlier in the year there would be nothing to even review as it would of been defeated.

    As it is, Australia will now be a surveillance state with bipartisan support.

    I was a swing voter however Labor will never see a vote from me ever again for their track record of online issues. Filtering, censorship, data retention, copyright. They are allies with the LNP in the war on the internet.

  2. you have the shadow cabinet who may have voted for it for political reasons – not starting a fight at that moment when the vote went through… and not just them but all the elected members. they have done their best to leave the focus on Tony – thats my feeling, at any rate.

    One has to remember there is also the party general, which did not have its say at the vote but only now at the General Meeting, speaking for the whole party rather than just the ones at the top of the tree as it were. Ludlam is correct that there was a missed moment in Parliament; and i agree with him. but sucessive governments have always reserved the right to review previous policy. this is not new.

    However i definitely do NOT agree with Brandis in the terms of “they must stick to their word” – that wipes out any say from the party in general and he is NOT the man who can demand that of them. he also ignores the general populace – who actually ARE ‘alarmed’ that the legislation made it through in the first place and who rightly have big concerns about it going forward – also a much larger group than the elected representatives in Parliament. i agree with Renai – the review is the right move and i back it 100%.

    I would also like to say i am sick and tired of Brandis and his party waving the ‘TERROR! BE SCARED!’ card every time this stuff comes up. i am truly over it, and you can jam it where the sun does not shine.

  3. The thing is… If they have terror suspects at the moment. They can get judicial approval to watch these guys that they suspect. Heck I am pretty sure they can get approval to watch the guys they suspect as well as a limited contact on people they have contact with.

    The problem is they want to just go ahead and do what they want when they want, without oversight….

  4. What this legislation is about is assisting our national security agencies to disrupt or prosecute those involved in some of the most horrendous acts of terrorism ever visited by humans on one another; you will have seen the beheadings on the web. Are you seriously suggesting that you object to the efforts of these security agencies doing their work? If that is so, then your values are seriously misalgned, in my humble opinion. We all have a vested interest in these agencies being timely and successful in their work. That Labor are even considering withdrawing support for the legislation indicates the shallowness of their commitment to keeping fellow Australians secure; this is the primary role of a national Government so just another reason why they are unfit to govern.

    • No I do not “object” to efforts to disrupt and prosecute those involved in acts of terrorism.

      But I do believe they require proper judicial oversight, as well as accountability for any actions they may take in the “name of security”.
      What I don’t want to see is a blank cheque attitude towards it. The reality is that there is only so much they can “do” with this information, in the name of terrorism, and most of it can be substantiated without the need to access the “metadata” of the entire populace at large.
      Because the problem of course is that there is an awful lot of other things that can be done with Metadata. Stuff that is not “Terrorism” related, and giving up that sort of stuff without oversight is not something I want. Ever.

      You don’t beat terrorists that way. All you do is help them achieve their goal. Because it causes unrest and distrust in the very groups we should be relying on to protect us.

      Process and Oversight. Without it you hand the keys of your castle to some random bureaucrat.

    • It’s a quote most often overused in this day and age.. but it’s often a tragedy that it must be used so –

      ““They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

      I won’t invoke Godwin’s law as it is in obvious one here. But by your point of view the Chinese have been on to the right thing w/ their constant surveillance on their citizens as well as the KGB and whatnot.

      Of course the biggest fallacy here is the belief that law enforcement are being “hindered” by not having access to such information. When they already *can* access said information – it’s called a “warrant”. There is reason why we have processes such as warrants and “innocent until proven guilty”. It stops gross oversight and mistakes which can harm the average person. Or must we enjoy a repeat of the Dr Haneef case which led a virtual witch hunt which has cost tax payers millions in compensation and wasted police effort in the police force’s zeal to try and name a perpetrator before properly investigating.

      • exactly. Pretty much all of the attempted terror cases that have been interdicted by the government have occurred under the old rules and powers with requested warrants and so on. the argument the system is not working and so we need to rush, post haste, hurry, give out more powers! is a nonsense. they have worked and have protected us to date.

        if there was a clear argument that there has been a massive failing in the system there might be grounds to look at where we can improve things, but really this pitch for more is just for the sake of it, ideologically based. i suspect it is also tied up in reelection stocks as well; this party has frequently gone to ‘law and order’ as a plank in its election policies. it would fit their M.O. to have this policy to wave around and use from the bully pulpit as an election weapon.. “see, we are more interested in your safety than the other party”.

        I see it as self interest thats really driving this, the primary motivator. if there was actual intent to disrupt and prosecute then sure policies should be investigated. but i do not see that as a real basis for this push.

    • Yes Renai (and I) seriously object to ASIO investigating suspected beheaders. That is exactly what the argument was. Precisely right, well done.

      Here have a cookie.

      (sorry all, I can’t stand strawman or whatever fallacy Garry was perpetrating.)

    • It’s a real shame you have fallen for the “death cult” propaganda campaign Abbott and his cronies are (successfully) running which appeals to the inherent racism, bigotry and xenophobic nature of hardline right wing Australians.

      Make no mistake, you are completely wrong. This is not about keeping Australians safe and it’s not about national security. It’s about government control, nothing else.

      Call me paranoid in lieu of arguing the cold hard facts but the truth of the matter is, you have a bigger chance of being killed by a falling plane or an allergic reaction to a bee sting than you do a terrorist, especially from a member of ISIS.

      The job of law enforcement and intelligence agencies is to constantly lobby for more powers to make their jobs easier so that they can do more with less people and less funding. It’s pretty much what every government agency does. The issue is – it’s up to government to balance these constant requests (data retention was being pushed for for around a decade and many AG’s before the pompous fool Brandis had thrown it out) against the need for them in the first place.

      Data Retention is NOT proportional, it is not necessary, the blanket surveillance of every man, women and child does NOT justify the ANY (if at all) benefits that would arise from this. There are existing powers available to these agencies that have been barely touched or used that would be completely adequate for what they want to do.

      So why is Abbott with the support of Labor supporting data retention along with all the other crazy online / internet laws being rammed through parliament? Because he has made this political. He is pandering to the people who hate Islam and fueling that hate. He is solidifying the support of the voter base previously in another lifetime attached to the Pauline Hanson party but who now look to xenophobic MP’s like George Christensen with mouth agap and a slight drool. Lemmings with an inner rage and in need of something to take it out on. A fear of a particular religion is perfect for Abbott and he knows it.

      Why does Shorten support this? Well in fairness he probably doesn’t but he is all about image. Shorten is the puppet of the right faction of the Labor party and he doesn’t want to look weak on national security. No matter how outrageous the proposed legislation Abbott brute forces through under the false guise of national security, it will get the rubber stamp of the Labor mob who are dominated by the right, with a few token but meaningless amendments.

      Labor’s problem is the right are essentially a mirror of the LNP now, with some differences in climate change (the right of Labor don’t want marriage equality.) The traditional Labor voter base are probably more moderate or even left leaning (evidenced by Albanese easily winning the public vote in the leadership ballet some time back but with Shorten getting the support of the powerful faceless men of the right.) National security will hurt Labor at the election, but not in the way Shorten expects. He supported all the legislation to not look weak however it’s that very support that will weaken his position come the election campaign.

  5. It all a political power play, the legislation it’s self calls for a review after a time (2 years I think it was?). So effectively, Labor is just calling for what the legislation already enshrined, I’m surprised Scott fell for it….but not surprised about Brandis, he’s a numpty….

Comments are closed.